Something has to die, in order for something to live.

[JohnR7]

When Adam and Eve fell into sin, the first thing God did was to make them animal skin clothing as a cover. It would appear that something had to die, in order for Adam and Eve to live.

Genesis 3:21
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

So, perhaps some of the people here with your "great" scientific minds can answer me this question. Does not something have to die, before a "higher" form of life can come forth. Were not the oceans filled with a more simple form of life and in some way, that allowed for a more complex form of life to follow them.

Even if I want to grow a plant, does that not require food of some sort, that usually takes the form of a organism that had lived, but now is fertilizer for the new form of life to feed on. Of course I know we now have chemical fertilizer, so maybe that is not the case at all. Just that life needs the right chemicals to survive. Can anyone explain this to me?

 

[lucaspa]

When Adam and Eve fell into sin, the first thing God did was to make them animal skin clothing as a cover. It would appear that something had to die, in order for Adam and Eve to live.

Genesis 3:21
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

So, perhaps some of the people here with your "great" scientific minds can answer me this question. Does not something have to die, before a "higher" form of life can come forth. Were not the oceans filled with a more simple form of life and in some way, that allowed for a more complex form of life to follow them.

John, at the beginning of the Cambrian, 95% of all species were one-celled. Today, 95% of all species are one-celled!

When the first finches got to the Galapagos, they found lots of empty ecological niches to fill. Who had to die in order for the finches to diversify to make all the species of Galapagos' finches there are today?

Basically, there are lots of ways to make a living. Just because you get a job doesn't mean someone has to be fired, does it?

 

[JohnR7]

Just because you get a job doesn't mean someone has to be fired, does it?

That depends on how good the economy is. I was reading about a research area in North Caroline where they project a 20% increase in jobs in the next 10 to 20 years, because of the growth in that area.

Yet there are other areas in the country right now that tend to be on a decline, and if someone were to quit they do not refill that job.

Who had to die in order for the finches to diversify

First of all, what do the finches eat? We are talking about the food chain.

 

[Nathan Poe]

When Adam and Eve fell into sin, the first thing God did was to make them animal skin clothing as a cover. It would appear that something had to die, in order for Adam and Eve to live.

Genesis 3:21
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Except that clothing certainly isn't required for survival. A person could walk around naked if the environment so permitted...

So, perhaps some of the people here with your "great" scientific minds can answer me this question. Does not something have to die, before a "higher" form of life can come forth.

Either this is another lame retelling of the "If humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys" strawman, or you're referring to the food chain.

What's your point?

Were not the oceans filled with a more simple form of life and in some way, that allowed for a more complex form of life to follow them.

Yes, and they're still there. Plankton and similar unicellular critters make up the base of the food chain.

Even if I want to grow a plant, does that not require food of some sort, that usually takes the form of a organism that had lived, but now is fertilizer for the new form of life to feed on. Of course I know we now have chemical fertilizer, so maybe that is not the case at all. Just that life needs the right chemicals to survive. Can anyone explain this to me?

What's to explain? Given that we have a common ancestry, it only makes sense that most life on this planet requires the same chemicals to survive.

And where's the best place for living things to find those chemicals? From other living things.

 

[zeontes]

When Adam and Eve fell into sin, the first thing God did was to make them animal skin clothing as a cover. It would appear that something had to die, in order for Adam and Eve to live.

Genesis 3:21
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

So, perhaps some of the people here with your "great" scientific minds can answer me this question. Does not something have to die, before a "higher" form of life can come forth. Were not the oceans filled with a more simple form of life and in some way, that allowed for a more complex form of life to follow them.

Adam and Eve were naked and knew it, so clothing was a benefit from God, animal sacrifice was instituted at this time for man's benefit. From my point of view looking around at the local Walmart I am glad that we wear clothes.

When a higher form of life dies, it is the more simple forms of life that benefit, so all I see here is consumerism. Plants grow primarily from the exchange of CO2 to O2 with few needs from the soil. Plants are providers, a thousand pound tree can be made with a few ounces of soil. Most of the tree is made up of CO2 converted into cellulose using sunlight.

 

[Tomk80]

When Adam and Eve fell into sin, the first thing God did was to make them animal skin clothing as a cover. It would appear that something had to die, in order for Adam and Eve to live.

Genesis 3:21
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

So, perhaps some of the people here with your "great" scientific minds can answer me this question. Does not something have to die, before a "higher" form of life can come forth. Were not the oceans filled with a more simple form of life and in some way, that allowed for a more complex form of life to follow them.

Even if I want to grow a plant, does that not require food of some sort, that usually takes the form of a organism that had lived, but now is fertilizer for the new form of life to feed on. Of course I know we now have chemical fertilizer, so maybe that is not the case at all. Just that life needs the right chemicals to survive. Can anyone explain this to me?

I really don't get what you're hinting at John. So just as in economy, if there are enough resources nothing has to die out for other forms of life to emerge. And if food is scarce probably some species become extinct. I'd say that this has nothing to do with whether an organism is more complex or not. Does that answer your question?
Or maybe you could say that when a new life form evolves, also a new niche is coming into existence where the new life form could be used as a food supply. Succeedingly, a form of life might emerge which makes use of this new food supply. Makes sense to me, but maybe that's just me.

 

[crosstrainer]

just wanted to say some of the quotes i'm reading lately are brilliant. Tomk good ones.

 

[JohnR7]

Except that clothing certainly isn't required for survival. A person could walk around naked if the environment so permitted...

Actually, I have wondered about that. If the Garden of Eden was in the mountains of modern day Turkey or Armenia, I would think that they would need something in the way of clothing in order to stay warm.

 

[JohnR7]

Yes, and they're still there. Plankton and similar unicellular critters make up the base of the food chain.

You guys seem to be doing a pretty good job of disproving man's theory of evolution. No one seems to think anything is any different than what it was from the beginning. So, I guess that is proof positive for creationism.

 

[Routerider]

John...I gave you some rep points and sent you a message....I used the rep system to send you a message cuz your PM mailbox is full GRRR!

 

[Routerider]

And John you're ready to hit 10K posts!

 

[JohnR7]

your PM mailbox is full GRRR!

It is? I just cleaned that out a little while ago. Ok, thanks for telling me, I will see about getting it cleaned out again.

 

[Tomk80]

You guys seem to be doing a pretty good job of disproving man's theory of evolution. No one seems to think anything is any different than what it was from the beginning. So, I guess that is proof positive for creationism.

No, at most this is proof negative for evolution. Come on, you should no that by now.
And actually how is evolution disproved by what has been written up to now. Please spell it out for me, because I really don't understand what you are trying to get at.

 

[JohnR7]

And John you're ready to hit 10K posts!

Wow, that seems like a lot. Are we any closer to understanding what the first chapter in the Bible is trying to tell us?

 

[Routerider]

Wow, that seems like a lot. Are we any closer to understanding what the first chapter in the Bible is trying to tell us?

We'll need 10K more posts til that's done.

Did you get my message?

 

[JohnR7]

Did you get my message?

No, I did clean it out though. Sometimes people will send me a little message of encouragement and I was saving some of them. But I went ahead and cleaned the whole folder out.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You guys seem to be doing a pretty good job of disproving man's theory of evolution. No one seems to think anything is any different than what it was from the beginning. So, I guess that is proof positive for creationism.

You know, John, some day you might actually know what you're talking about...

One-Celled organisms existed billions of years ago.

One-celled organisms still exist today.

This proves Creationism how?

 

[JohnR7]

You know, John, some day you might actually know what you're talking about...

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

No problem. Who says Atheists have no faith?